Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken FM: Thinly veiled socialism. Get over it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox More blather from a bunch of lobbysts that have not been able to get any kind of bill out of committee in a decade.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal As opposed to the thinly veiled fascism of the current anti-trust exempt rail oligarcy which gouges domestic producers while simultaneously bending over backwards for the import intermodal trade? Pull your head out of the ballast for a while so you can see the reality of what's going on. And for the record (and for the umteenth time), I am not in favor of reregulating rates. I am in favor of breaking up the oligarchy vertically for the sake of establishing market based rates and aggressive expansion via intramodal competition. If it takes the ironic twist of separating the infrastructure from the rest and putting it into public/private consortium oversight, then so be it. Just for the sake of posterity, why has it taken two years and counting to rehab the Orin line? The bottom line is this: The mindset of the Class I's that they are immune to the consequences of their actions (or inactions as the case may be) is finally coming around to confront them in the court of public opinion, and that's the figurative place where legislative action comes to the fore.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox More blather from a bunch of lobbysts that have not been able to get any kind of bill out of committee in a decade. Tell me Bob, are you immune to price hikes in your electric bill? You must have a place that is electrified by distributed power systems and warmed by an internal hot air system. No coal? No heating oil? No natural gas?
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox More blather from a bunch of lobbysts that have not been able to get any kind of bill out of committee in a decade. Tell me Bob, are you immune to price hikes in your electric bill? You must have a place that is electrified by distributed power systems and warmed by an internal hot air system. No coal? No heating oil? No natural gas? We have planned our finances to absorb any prices increases.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear These are the same people who have the opportunity to fund the DM&E and are hanging back?!? PLEASE...typical rail customers seeking to justify their own rate hikes by blaming it on the RRs... Situation normal... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear These are the same people who have the opportunity to fund the DM&E and are hanging back?!? PLEASE...typical rail customers seeking to justify their own rate hikes by blaming it on the RRs... Situation normal... LC How about this point FM? I am glad LC nailed this one, as I remember reading about the funding of the DM&E, and thinking where in the heck are all of the energy utilities in all of this? That answered a lot of questions for me as to the complaining that the utilities have been doing.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear These are the same people who have the opportunity to fund the DM&E and are hanging back?!? PLEASE...typical rail customers seeking to justify their own rate hikes by blaming it on the RRs... Situation normal... LC How about this point FM? I am glad LC nailed this one, as I remember reading about the funding of the DM&E, and thinking where in the heck are all of the energy utilities in all of this? That answered a lot of questions for me as to the complaining that the utilities have been doing. The only thing LC has nailed is his brain to the ballast. We discussed this before, that any ambitious rail project, especially one whose ultimate fate rests with PRB coal, will need federal backing. Yes, PRB coal is hot right now, but what happens if the Democrats take back the White House and Congress? Coal may again revert back to the ranks of "unclean" status. We may get the dreaded "carbon tax" (ostensibly to mitigate the perceived "cause" of alleged global warming/abrupt climate change), and if so coal is dead. Nuclear power may get a big boost. In other words, there are a lot of uncertain variables lurking that could kill any potential returns on such a capital intensive investment. The real question is why any private investors would even consider such an investment without some guarantees. Well, DM&E now has the guarantees in the form of the federal loan guarantee, which means the private capital will now be available. And by every measure, the current coal shortage is most definitely the fault of the railroads, specifically BNSF and UP. They are only delivering at 85% of normal. So the railroad types turn around and blame the utilities, claiming "they should have stockpiled more". How? How can they have been expected to stockpile more when the railroads can barely keep up with past demand? Who is supposed to deliver this extra coal, trucks? Paaaalease. "Situation normal"?!? Are you kidding me? Meanwhile, the ghost of Chairman Mao sits back and revels in the returns his minions are receiving from the US railroads.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Gabe, Is it the job of regulated utilities to be risking their investor's and ratepayer's money in railroads? They can barely keep up with AMR installation. They are in many states faced with a minimum "renewables" requirement, further eroding the needed investment in future baseline power production. They can't just be throwing money at a capital intensive project that may become superfluous if King Coal again becomes the bad guy in political circles. If you are saying that energy companies should just run their own railroads, why do we even have BNSF and UP? Isn't it the job of railroad companies to invest in this concept called "railroading"? It's not confusing at all.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449 Am I to understand from the above that a power plant that is specifically designed to burn coal (frequently a particular grade of coal) needs only to turn on the gas spigot to begin using gas? I don't think so.
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan The problem is.....There arn't enough Coal Trains. Coal is what's called a low priorty Freight. It can and will sit in the yard for hours for many reasons. I do agree. It is the Railroads falt for not delivering enough Coal. And if and when those P*GS called the Democrats do take over the Government,you will the end of Coal as we know it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan The problem is.....There arn't enough Coal Trains. Coal is what's called a low priorty Freight. It can and will sit in the yard for hours for many reasons. I do agree. It is the Railroads falt for not delivering enough Coal. And if and when those **** called the Democrats do take over the Government,you will the end of Coal as we know it. Easy there buddy. There are a few Dems here, namely me!
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan The problem is.....There arn't enough Coal Trains. Coal is what's called a low priorty Freight. It can and will sit in the yard for hours for many reasons. I do agree. It is the Railroads falt for not delivering enough Coal. And if and when those **** called the Democrats do take over the Government,you will the end of Coal as we know it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by fuzzybroken ... and my sympathies go out to you... [}:)][}:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by JOdom If the utilities think they are being ripped off so badly, let them buy DM&E and pay to extend and rebuild the railroad so it can haul PRB coal. They might find out railroad rates aren't so high after all. When the big auto companies and other large Detroit businesses got tired enough of being ripped off by Northworst Airlines for flights out of Detroit, the businesses got together and started their own airline, to fly where their people needed to go, at prices that weren't highway robbery. It worked very nicely. I'd like to see the utilities try something similar. However, here's the reaction you would get if you proposed this idea to the utilities: What? Invest large quantities of REAL MONEY? No, no, much easier and cheaper to get the gov't to strongarm the railroads into lowering their rates to a level the we (the utilities) deem proper.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68 Detroit Edison did run its own trains, albeit on others tracks...
QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken QUOTE: Originally posted by fuzzybroken ... and my sympathies go out to you... [}:)][}:)] I'm trying to turn over a new leaf. Guys get all butt hurt when I proceed to light somebody up, like you Fuzzy. I want this duely noted that I was fired upon and declined to flame......Being the nice guy blows!
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 I am in agreement with JOdom (are you John "Blue Moon Odom" the Oakland A's pitcher from the 70's?). Let the utilities invest in the construction of the DME line. That is a great idea.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PBenham Re-regulation would be about the worst thing that could happen to our country's railroads. However I believe that this [censored] won't make it past president Bush's desk! And when the socialists in congress,bought and paid for by labor unions and the kook left fail to garner 60 votes in the senate or290 in the house, they will be screaming like they always do when reality hits them upside the head! Now, if certain railroads continue to provide sub-standard service and Amtrak gets second class treatment on any of the big seven, then it might get hairy. The March issue of Railfan & Railroad had an article on the Sunset route that admitted that Amtrak's Sunset Limited gets less than priority treatment from UP dispatchers. UP had better wake up, the Socialists in congress could have enough ammo to shoot the railroad industry right into the graveyard if they don't watch out.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Electric utilities are indeed regulated to varying degrees by the several states, but the last time I looked, they were a monopoly (not oligopoly or oligarchy) within their service areas. If I don't like the service provided by Commonwealth Edison, I can't go over to Wisconsin Electric or NIPSCO and ask them to provide electric service.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access? Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains. I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity. OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Just a few facts of the rail industry. Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard And yours, Michael? You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad? Ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Just a few facts of the rail industry. Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline. Your background in queuing theory and network practice is ... what? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Just a few facts of the rail industry. Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline. Your background in queuing theory and network practice is ... what? Best regards, Michael Sol I see a couple people beat me to it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl Just a few facts of the rail industry. Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline. Your background in queuing theory and network practice is ... what? Best regards, Michael Sol I see a couple people beat me to it. I obviously didn't propose what shorter trains did to the mainline, you clever gentlemen. TomDiehl proposed to know. Based on his fabrications on other threads, I am interested to know if he has a basis for his proposition, or is just making it up. By the way Ed and Bob, since you raised the issue, do either of you have any experience in queuing theory or network practice? Or were those just your usual rhetorical questions? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard And yours, Michael? You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad? Ed And you? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access? Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains. I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity. OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph. Disagreeing with this is TOO easy. Just a few facts of the rail industry. Under the access of only the owning railroad, I guess they're not using their assets to the fullest potential? That is the most ridiculous claim of the entire "open access" concept. Railroad speed limits are based on the condition of the trackwork. "Forcing" a railroad to run at 50 MPH can't be done if the trackwork isn't up to that standard. Upgrading and maintaining trackwork to the 50 MPH standard costs a good bit more than trackwork at 25 MPH. Speed limit is less dependant on the length of the train than the quality of the rolling stock. Again, a higher expense. Simply splitting these expenses up between an operating company and a trackwork company would add another level of management, increasing costs, not decreasing them. Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 OK, so the DME is building it's own line into the PRB. Isn't that much better than 6 railroads running the same number of trains that 2 now do over the Orin sub, as would happen under open access? Except under open access the infrastructure owner would want as many trains as possible moving as quickly as possible over the lines to maximize the daily revenues. The only way to do this is to encourage shorter faster trains rather than dealing with those longer slower trains. I dare anyone to disagree with this premise - forcing the railroads to move at an average speed of 50 mph as opposed to the current 25 mph would do wonders for improving capacity. OA with a 50 mph industry average speed would be more fluid than closed access at 25 mph. Disagreeing with this is TOO easy. Just a few facts of the rail industry. Under the access of only the owning railroad, I guess they're not using their assets to the fullest potential? That is the most ridiculous claim of the entire "open access" concept. Railroad speed limits are based on the condition of the trackwork. "Forcing" a railroad to run at 50 MPH can't be done if the trackwork isn't up to that standard. Upgrading and maintaining trackwork to the 50 MPH standard costs a good bit more than trackwork at 25 MPH. Speed limit is less dependant on the length of the train than the quality of the rolling stock. Again, a higher expense. Simply splitting these expenses up between an operating company and a trackwork company would add another level of management, increasing costs, not decreasing them. Plus the frequency of the trains would be dependant on the capacity of the signalling system. So shorter trains would just clog up the mainline. ....and the sound of left knees jerking commences! Tom, this isn't about mainline speed limits, it's about the industry average velocity, which right now is a pitiful 25 mph. The speed limits can stay as they are for the most part, what needs to happen is to get those slower than speed limit trains up to speed.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Try this hypothetical for size: Which would ultimately have the greatest revenue ton/miles per year (all other factors being equal)- a 263k car moving at an average speed of 50 mph, or a 315k car moving at an average speed of 25 mph?
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Sat in the PTRA's dispatchers/yardmasters seat off the extra board for a short time..and went back to the ground switching as fast as my feet would allow! For the pay, the stress and headaches were not worth it. The major constraints are as Tom pointed out, the limits of the system used to control train movement, and the ability of the yards to absorb the inbound traffic. Bluntly, you have to have somewhere to put the trains, getting them there is only half the equation, as UP found out the hard way when they tried to run the Houston SP network in the same manner they ran the rest of their railroad. By the way, you raised the question, not I. All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience. Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero. QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard And yours, Michael? You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad? Ed And you? Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Sat in the PTRA's dispatchers/yardmasters seat off the extra board for a short time..and went back to the ground switching as fast as my feet would allow! For the pay, the stress and headaches were not worth it. The major constraints are as Tom pointed out, the limits of the system used to control train movement, and the ability of the yards to absorb the inbound traffic. Bluntly, you have to have somewhere to put the trains, getting them there is only half the equation, as UP found out the hard way when they tried to run the Houston SP network in the same manner they ran the rest of their railroad. By the way, you raised the question, not I. All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience. Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero. QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard And yours, Michael? You were a dispatcher from when to when, and for what railroad? Ed And you? Best regards, Michael Sol Ed, Is it just me, or did you notice that we posted our backgrounds on this topic, but have YET to hear about Michael's? Maybe he's still "theorizing" or reading papers and never had any real world experience.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Tom, I never had to hide behind anonymity, nor have I pretended to be an expert...what you see is what I really am, an engine foreman/switchman/conductor at the PTRA in Houston. Unlike the armchair railroading both Dave and Michael play at, I do it for a living. They do this (trolling) as a sport, neither on has any experience running a train...Michaels total experience in railroad operations is that as a teenager; he carried a fire extinguisher on a ROW brush fire squad, for a summer. Which qualifies him to pee on a match...?
QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken Ed, between people here that are armchair rails and newbies who haven't ever paid off any of RRB's tiers or for that matter put in enough time to qualify for RR unemployment, I just wanna puke! On annother thread, this chick is "cutting people in," that have been through the hiring prcess on how the cow eats the cabbage......The MODOC way. Crap! I am not a pro for Peat's sake....but, If you Havn't done it yourself, then have some respect for those that have!
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear QUOTE: Originally posted by ironken Ed, between people here that are armchair rails and newbies who haven't ever paid off any of RRB's tiers or for that matter put in enough time to qualify for RR unemployment, I just wanna puke! On annother thread, this chick is "cutting people in," that have been through the hiring prcess on how the cow eats the cabbage......The MODOC way. Crap! I am not a pro for Peat's sake....but, If you Havn't done it yourself, then have some respect for those that have! I heartily agree... Michael Sol is an attorney for those who don't know. As far as I can determine he has no real railroad experience. Having both my attorney's license in a few jurisdictions and an engineer's card and conductor's qualification, I think you can see where I stand... Also, that woman on the Modoc thread is a FOOL... LC
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard By the way, you raised the question, not I. All I was doing was asking for your train dispatching qualifications and experience. Based on the fact that, like a good lawyer, you never answered the question, but redirected the question instead, I would say your experience is zero. [
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Actually, Mike... I am a yardman because I have enough seniority to hold the nice morning trick lead job with the days off I want, work, or not work the holidays I chose, and have both a nice lunchroom, with a coffee pot on all the time, and the privilege of being the lead man on our switch crews...I am here by choice, I don’t have to walk brake sets in the rain, or replace knuckles by myself, and pretty much am allowed to run things at my pace and in the manner I choose...as opposed to you being "out of the loop" for 30 plus years. And I am certain that when I retire, I will have met many, many men, and a few woman, that are much better railroaders than I... and most certainly much better, and less bitter people than you. But enough of the pissing contest; trust me, mine’s younger, squirts farther, and I have better aim than you... The real question is: Do you plan on answering Tom's question, or not? Ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard Actually, Mike... I am a yardman because I have enough seniority to hold the nice morning trick lead job with the days off I want, work, or not work the holidays I chose, and have both a nice lunchroom, with a coffee pot on all the time, and the privilege of being the lead man on our switch crews...I am here by choice, I don’t have to walk brake sets in the rain, or replace knuckles by myself, and pretty much am allowed to run things at my pace and in the manner I choose...as opposed to you being "out of the loop" for 30 plus years. And I am certain that when I retire, I will have met many, many men, and a few woman, that are much better railroaders than I... and most certainly much better, and less bitter people than you. But enough of the pissing contest; trust me, mine’s younger, squirts farther, and I have better aim than you... The real question is: Do you plan on answering Tom's question, or not? Ed Don't know what Tom's question was. I stopped reading after he fabricated some studies on another thread, then plagarized a website offering it as his own knowledge. I've answered a lot of Tom's questions, in a straightfoward fashion. When he demanded on another thread that I explain why a Professional Engineer was not the same thing as every engineer that the railroads had, I did so without rancor or drama. A PE is a specific thing and it was not what Tom thought. He was fairly arrogant about his assumptions, but presumably that was put to rest. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken 50 MPH average speed for coal trains huh? [(-D][(-D][(-D] No matter the condition of the track structure, that coal train equipment isn't going over 45 MPH.
QUOTE: Originally posted by samsooter@yahoo.com QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken 50 MPH average speed for coal trains huh? [(-D][(-D][(-D] No matter the condition of the track structure, that coal train equipment isn't going over 45 MPH. you have no idea what you are talking about. on the bnsf in winslow, az the max speed for a coal train is 55. throughout the powder river the max speed on all bnsf unit coal trains is 50.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal And of course, it needs to be pointed out that in all likelyhood neither ed, Tom, ironken, LC, or mudchicken have any experience in economic analysis, which is why they think the world of expertise stops at the union hall. Some punk management type tells them it can't be done, and they gladly regurgitate the misinformation. And woe to those who beg to differ if they are not professional railroaders, 'cause if you ain't ever jacked a run 8 or took some slack up the backside, "why you don't know nuthin' bout how these here railroads funkshun." Suffice it to say, older transportation theories state that the logical upper limit of steel wheel on steel rail is around 125 mph, so to expect railroads to achieve a doubling of average industry speed from 25 mph to 50 mph is only "impossible" to those who have not studied transportation theories. And to try and explain revenue maximization to those who think revenues are derived from increasing load factor per car, not tons of revenue-producing product delivered per time period, is like trying to explain fiduciary fiscal factuality to a feculent foppish frump.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom, just remember "more trains" does not mean more congestion, it means greater fluidity of the system. Occupying a slot is a function of time, not train length. The less time a train occupies a slot, the faster that slot becomes available for the next train. If longer consists could get faster, great, but it seems that the practical solution to reduce the time a slot is occupied is to run 'em shorter and quicker, until someone comes up with a way to run 'em longer and quicker. Even then, the longer consists will always take more time to make up and break up. Parking cars in a yard somewhere is not a solution to discapacity.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Regarding GVW, it must be pointed out that increasing a truck's GVW will not have any effect of adding to highway congestion, because that heavier truck is still booking along at the max speed limit except on grades, and most grades these days have passing lanes, so no one is being inhibited by that heavier truck. There's plenty of places to pass on most highways. In fact, increasing GVW standards for trucks will reduce the number of trucks required to haul a set tonnage of cargo, so the effect can be reduced ambient highway congestion. On railroads, it's different, because "passing" zones are few and far between, so one heavy train bumbling along will clog up the whole system. Do what ever it takes to limit the amount of time a consist spends on a slot, and then and only then can you effectively "add" capacity without laying a single new set of rails.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM Tom Speed limits are not a function of train length. They may be a function of train type. Unit coal trains are sometimes held to a lower speed than others, for example. Lower speed limits are sometimes imposed on trains with high tons per operative brake TPOB. This is because a train with high TPOB will take longer to stop that will one with lower TPOB. This is done where signals are relatively close together and speed needs to be limited to assure they can stop for an adverse signal. Mac
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Yeah, GPS is too newfangled for the railroads to touch. Better wait another 50 years until trucks and ships prove it's value, then finally adopt it.
QUOTE: [i] Tom, just remember "more trains" does not mean more congestion, it means greater fluidity of the system. Occupying a slot is a function of time, not train length. The less time a train occupies a slot, the faster that slot becomes available for the next train. If longer consists could get faster, great, but it seems that the practical solution to reduce the time a slot is occupied is to run 'em shorter and quicker, until someone comes up with a way to run 'em longer and quicker. Even then, the longer consists will always take more time to make up and break up. Parking cars in a yard somewhere is not a solution to discapacity.
QUOTE: [i Regarding GVW, it must be pointed out that increasing a truck's GVW will not have any effect of adding to highway congestion, because that heavier truck is still booking along at the max speed limit except on grades, and most grades these days have passing lanes, so no one is being inhibited by that heavier truck. There's plenty of places to pass on most highways. In fact, increasing GVW standards for trucks will reduce the number of trucks required to haul a set tonnage of cargo, so the effect can be reduced ambient highway congestion. On railroads, it's different, because "passing" zones are few and far between, so one heavy train bumbling along will clog up the whole system. Do what ever it takes to limit the amount of time a consist spends on a slot, and then and only then can you effectively "add" capacity without laying a single new set of rails.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken (4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization. ******************************************************************************* You're dreaming again - your lack of a "grounding in reality" is amazing. The relative precision of GPS data collected even with the pdop military inhibitors removed is poor, even with post-processing. Ain't gonna happen until computer technology makes a quantum leap. GPS is not the panacea you reckless clowns think it is.(about as bad as the call for GPS tracking in coal mines made recently[:D])
QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken (4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization. ******************************************************************************* You're dreaming again - your lack of a "grounding in reality" is amazing. The relative precision of GPS data collected even with the pdop military inhibitors removed is poor, even with post-processing. Ain't gonna happen until computer technology makes a quantum leap. GPS is not the panacea you reckless clowns think it is.(about as bad as the call for GPS tracking in coal mines made recently[:D]) Now I have heard some stupid things before but that has to be one of the stupidest. GPS in a cave? HELLO, is there anybody home?[V]
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken Will keep waving the banner of quack science until he brainwashes enough witless souls to further his cause.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken Will keep waving the banner of quack science until he brainwashes enough witless souls to further his cause. Oh no [:0], mudchicken is on to our secret conspriacy to brainwash professional railroaders (or as he calls them "witless souls")[:D]. ....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids..... Of course, what he's really afraid of is the fact that GPS is the primary component of the crewless consist concept. Even I'm not a proponent of that! Isn't it ironic that UPS has a better idea of where their trucks are than the railroad that is carrying them?
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH FM should also be aware that GPS for civilian use is only accurate to about 10-15 feet of actual position, insufficient accuracy to determine which track on a multiple-track main line. Is GPS enough of an improvement over existing systems to justify the expense of installation or is it a case of hi-tech for its own sake?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal ....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal ....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids..... Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)]
QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 FM, I think you're missing the point about DME. For better ot worse, de-regulation has been the trend since the 80's. DME shows the market is working.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal ....and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for these meddling kids..... Watch it there buster! You just might be bordering on sophomoric territory![}:)] Well, a sophomoric allegation deserves a sophomoric response.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by up829 FM, I think you're missing the point about DME. For better ot worse, de-regulation has been the trend since the 80's. DME shows the market is working..... Except if the market was really working, DM&E (and any other railroad company who could conceivably stretch their rails into the PRB) would have been able to build their extension entirely with private funds. The question then is what is the primary reason for this need for government backing for rail projects? Is it perhaps that railroads have never really had the private sector viability capable of a nationwide network (otherwise why did we need the land grants and why do we need the anti-trust exemption)? Should a nation's rail network be reflective of it's total multi-modal package of infrastructure, rather than trying to exemplify a quasi-private sector investment? What we do know is this: The current private closed access rail system does not engender the ideal of a genuine working free market, either historically or presently.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals."
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal (4) In what may need FRA approval, implement GPS to supercede lineside signals or the lack thereof. GPS would result in incredible efficiency gains, what is needed is a way to combine GPS with in cab signalling. Being able to bunch trains closer together means greater line utilization.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 1. I would grant you that GPS is a lot cheaper than installing new CTC/ABS. 2. GPS could work in conjunction with EOT radar and lead unit radar detection, which would be activated if a lead consist slows below a safe speed range, or if it stops on the main, and would deactivate once a consist clears a siding. The point is, GPS wouldn't necessarily have to work alone to achieve the desired capacity improvements.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals." Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said. Bad Tom, no biscuit.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard The man is in like Flynn... Anyone who is that persistent, plus being a PITA, has to be Ilk material! Ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals." Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said. Bad Tom, no biscuit. Bad Dave, poor reading of your own posts.
QUOTE: Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl So far he's moved the GPS idea from "superceed signals" to "supplement signals." Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said. Bad Tom, no biscuit. Bad Dave, poor reading of your own posts. Tom, This is how incredibly stupid you really are: This is what I originally said: QUOTE: Tom, who exactly are you quoting with your " 'superceed signals' to 'supplement signals' " statement? No one said anything about supplementing signals. It seems you have a bad habit of making up quotes ostensibly attributed to others, when in fact nothing of the kind was said. As you or anyone with more than 5 braincells can clearly see, I did not deny using the term "'superceed signals' ". I did deny using the term "supplementing signals", because I did not say it. You rather claimed that I said it, then you go to the trouble of cut and pasting the "superceed" quote, and use that to aver the non-existent "supplement" quote. What I did say in subsequent posts was a questioning of whether there would be a need for lineside signals soley for the purpose of indicating broken rails or other rail relay disruptions. That has nothing to do with "supplementing" GPS for the purpose of streamlining train operations, which is the path you've trod. And again, why is it you feel a need to misrepresent posters to obfiscate the subject matter? Either you have an opinion on options for streamlining operations, or you don't. Why not just leave it at that? I stand by the truth, which is that you make up quotes attributed to others, when in fact they did not say them, and you do so to skew the discussion away from the subject. Perhaps you are hoping to induce yet another Bergie lockdown? And you wouldn't qualify as an ilk, you've got a lot of subhuman pissing and hissing to do before you can get that membership. Cheers!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Tom, You have purposefully misrepresented what I said. You know it. Everyone who reads through this thread knows it. I never ever said GPS should supplement lineside signals. You are the one who implied that, not me.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl From this thread, page 6 post 6 from the same user: QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 1. I would grant you that GPS is a lot cheaper than installing new CTC/ABS. 2. GPS could work in conjunction with EOT radar and lead unit radar detection, which would be activated if a lead consist slows below a safe speed range, or if it stops on the main, and would deactivate once a consist clears a siding. The point is, GPS wouldn't necessarily have to work alone to achieve the desired capacity improvements. Note item 2.
futuremodal wrote:(1/28/06) Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...
(1/28/06)
Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...
____________________________
2/4/2007
Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated.
What a shock.
signal overlap wrote: futuremodal wrote:(1/28/06) Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...____________________________ 2/4/2007Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated. What a shock.
Perhaps if the perfect storm would just blow FM back to his own private Idaho and knock out his internet service we would have some peace instead of the same old tired arguments which have little to do with regulation re-regulation or anything about railroads in the real world. FM needs to stick to his layout and DDC console and leave the real railroading to the railroaders and our Ilk... LOL...
LC
Wouldn't be as enteraining, though.
Which is why the topic title included a question mark. That'd be one of these things - .
The gist of the subject is still valid if not more so, given that the Democrats have taken back Congress, thus making re-regulation even more likely.
Seems we have a new Temperary Troll for the forum! Welcome, "Signal Overlap" ! Hope you last longer than the last temp troll.
Limitedclear wrote: signal overlap wrote: futuremodal wrote:(1/28/06) Thar's a perfect strom approachin', and the end result will be re-regulation of the railroads, ...____________________________ 2/4/2007Incredibly, here we are well into 2007, and the rail industry is still not re-regulated. What a shock. Perhaps if the perfect storm would just blow FM back to his own private Idaho and knock out his internet service we would have some peace instead of the same old tired arguments which have little to do with regulation re-regulation or anything about railroads in the real world. FM needs to stick to his layout and DDC console and leave the real railroading to the railroaders and our Ilk... LOL...LC
And the insult orgy is reborn!
I guess the real question is which event will occur first - Reregulation of the railroads, or LC getting kicked off this forum permanently.
edbenton wrote:Correct on that one this is the same person that stated on an another thread stated that the current trailers out on the road could handle being loaded to a gross weight of 97000 lbs. I think not I am a former driver and mechanic and know for a fact that the normal trailer out there would flat our buckle under the weight and also baukrupt all the large carriers from the expense of replacing the current trailers.
Most Western states now allow 105,500 GVW. Some like Montana allow 129,000 GVW.
futuremodal wrote: edbenton wrote:Correct on that one this is the same person that stated on an another thread stated that the current trailers out on the road could handle being loaded to a gross weight of 97000 lbs. I think not I am a former driver and mechanic and know for a fact that the normal trailer out there would flat our buckle under the weight and also baukrupt all the large carriers from the expense of replacing the current trailers.Most Western states now allow 105,500 GVW. Some like Montana allow 129,000 GVW.
Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) includes the weight of the tractor. A separate figure from the gross weight of the trailer.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.